somewhere in the united states, dennis rodman is not only going to learn to regret this himself, personally, but somebody may bring charges. this is an enemy of the united states. i'm sorry, dennis, you're a free by, do what you want, but -- >> crazy off the rocker insane. >> that sounds reg. as we wait to see what, if any, impact we have, there's scare tactics from the white house. >> of all the hysteria about the imlaps of life as we know it, transportation secretary was hysterical, the one who said don't by a toyota because it could run away with you in it, turns out, nothing was wrong with the car. now threatens closing control towers but in the pilot communityings of which i'm one, the blogs are full of laughter. in fact, there's some -- mostly
support for the idea, actually, but there's approximately 5,000 airports scattered around the country. most of them do not have a control tower. the towers are mostly in bigger cities, and, somehow, planes come and go with great safety record. there's a long established procedure pilots used when approaching or departing an airport without a tower. p con consensus seems to be, les not waste money on staffing the towers. maybe use the controllers at busier airports, you know, be efficient. i am just one pilot saying, go ahead, lahood thought it a threat. i think it's a good idea. melissa? melissa: thank you. watch the tom sullivan show this weekend. happy friay to everyone, especially, the fans in austin, texas tonight. thanks to all of you, for the boast of you for coming on. >> yeah, absolutely. melissa: have a great weekend.
♪ >> congress allows this meat cleaver approach to take place. john: a meat cleaver? the presidents of the sequestered cuts are like using a meat cleaver on the budget. if only that were true because i would say believe away. because if we don't to my generation, in effect, steals from younger people. it's like we baby boomers do this. >> i need to take this. >> what are you doing? >> i'm old. i need this. i need this. i'm going to take this. >> sake, give that back. john: taking banks from kids is nice for me, but the rest of you have to deal with the debt bomb. that is our show tonight. ♪ >> and now john stossel. john: i am sure thankful to all you young people out there so that i can take things like
these from you. okay. i don't really need them. i don't want to steal from and people, but that is exactly what my government has arranged for me to do. i am 65 years old. i am now entitled to medicare, social security, and wealth transfer operation that takes from the young and gives to the old him even the affluent old. and it is unsustainable. nowhere near enough money to pay for the promises politicians made. we are already 16 trillion in debt. so, most politicians response, spend more. don't cut anything. my president calls the sequester a meat cleaver approach. meat cleaver. we should take a meat cleaver to the budgets. at the sequester cuts just that thing, they want to increase spending. this much. instead, they're just going to
add this much. and they are still adding. they're spending more. don't believe me, look at this chart. the red line is what they planned to spend over the next ten years. the blue line is what they will spend after the sequester cuts. spending still increases, just a little less. and you could say i am being unfair here because it is reasonable for government to grow to account for inflation. that is a fair criticism. so let's adjusted for inflation. i will listen to% per year. spending still will increase, even with the sequestered. american politicians increase spending outlays by more than inflation every year. they're out of control. there politician who understands that, senator rand paul. congressman, you voted against the sequestered because he did not think it cut enough. >> yes. now everyone is walking. it is really just a slowdown in the rate of increase in
government. i mean, you look at that chart the you put up. you cannot even really see a space between the lines. so it is the least that we can do to get started, and we have people, even on the republican side saying, oh, wl, let's do the cuts over ten years instead of over one year. they're going to replace the sequestered with ten years' worth of cuts instead of one year, and that is such a cop out, and if we cannot do this little bit, which is in the right direction, how are we ever going to balance the budget? john: on the other hand, if the sequester passes there will be real cuts discretionary spending here is a graph of that. but discretionary, including military, that is only one-third of the budget. it is still not that big a cut. >> the other interesting thing, john, is that the cuts in discretionary spending, if you look at them by themselves, it is really only in the first your soap, and then they rise. only in washington couldn't increase in $7 trillion over ten years because the cut. >> and i have, but the proposal
that i call sequestration without layoffs. ammo we propose is, why don't we not rehire anybody who retires. that is about 100,000 federal workers per year, 66 billion. why don't pay federal workers the same as we pay private workers. that will be about 16% less than repay the now. that saves 302 billion. what we cut their travel budget by 25%. that saves another 2 billion. and then if we do competitive wages and competitive bidding for contractors, that's another 19 billion. you cut out the entire sequester without losing a single job, although i do think the government probably does need to be smaller. you could do it without cutting any jobs if you wanted to. john: and you have gone beyond that and proposed a budget that would eliminate four cabinet departments, commerce. that would save $9 billion. education, 70 billion, energy, 27 billion. some of that is for nuclear bond maintenance and could order the
defense department. housing and development, 41 billion. i think many americans fear that and they say, how will we have commerce or education or housing? >> my argument would be that we have spent about $100 billion per year and education. it's not any better. we have tripled the amount of per pupil spending, and because classrooms and a half. and scores are flat. we have not gotten any better. i am a big believer in school choice. john: how will we have comers' without a commerce department? >> you know, the great thing about trade is, people trade to try to benefit their self-interest, and we have had it since man first existed. i do not think we need the government -- what happens to the commerce department is they subsidize there travel, certain ceos that are friends of government. if you are a friend of, you know, barack obama you get to travel around. they happy with sweetheart deals like solyndra or almost 2 billion for the kennedy family
for bright source. you don't need that favoritism, and its really what is wrong with government, corporate welfare. john: how will we have housing without the partment of housing and urban development? >> i think the government has actually torn down more houses than they ever built. and many of the public housing's go into disrepair and is used. the great programs out there for helping the poor. have a tougher humanity is on the support. they build houses. they build ownership. peopleut sweat equity as well as body into them. and i think there are ways to help people, but throwing government housing at the men and letting them get overrun by drugs and other problems is not the way to do it. john: how would we have energy without an energy department? >> i think basically the marketplace will determine the cheapest form of energy. right now you have the government, president obama distorting the marketplace and giving money to people who are big contributors who built solar panel compaes and really, all
of these companies seem to be going bankrupt. so really what you need is a marketplace to directed, and then those who could boost energy the cheapest, consumers will buy those energy forms and those energy companies will succeed. john: the current congress is not entertaining your cuts of four departments, but this is a shell. i will go further. why are you so careful? why not get rid of the labor department and the agriculture department? >> you know, i am such a moderate. i'm just party with about 30 percent of government. we will go from there. but here's the thing. imagine the fuehrer if there were seriously discussing my 5-year balanced budget. right now we're talking about a cut in the rate of increase that never balances the budget. we are becoming more poor each year as we dig the hole deeper and deeper. john: le me call with you about your balance the budget idea. in that, i automatically start to go to sleep.
but mike understanding is, we don't need to get all the way balanced. if we simply slow the growth of government to one or 2% per year we can grow our way of the debt problem. >> that is true that growth is a big part of this. impact, when you look in people say there's not enough tax revenue, the reason is because we have been in a terrible recession. so it is about economic engines of growth. but youave to have policies that cause growth. john: do you agree that balancing the budget is a goal, but you don't have to get all the way there if we just slow the growth that would allow us to get out of trouble. >> well, that is how you -- yes, you get into more manageable debt. i still think he should balance your annual debt. i'm not appear say we have to immediately eliminates $16 trillion in debt. that's my to be very difficult. but balancing your annual budget is a good and wise admonition. and so i do favor getting to that. there is another plan and
another way of looking at it. i propose the penney plan which cuts government by 1 percent per year for six years in the budget actually balances, but it puts it into perspective. it is not that difficult to balance the budget. it would have to be a real 1% cut, and i think most american families have had to live with that. i see no reason why government shouldn't. john: just 1%. good luck. thank you, senator rand paul. >> thanks, john. john: cutting government spending is not just about giving us a budget that sustainable, it is also a moral issue. the institute. >> well, every dollar spent is a dollar taken from somebody, whether it is three taxes or whether it is three dead, which is taking from somebody in the future, or whether it is for printing money which creates inflation which is another form of taxes because it raises the cost of living. we talk about spending, but we have to remember, the money comes from somewhere. we are involved today in the largest redistribution of wealth and human history from young people who typically airport to
older people who, even if they're not prosperous, should be because they should have saved. they have a lifetime of savings. john: but social security. r saying we have to take care of the old people. >> a bad contract. and the bill is due. it is unsustainable, and it is wrong. it is immoral. it is immoral. it is immoral to take from the youn and poor and give to the, supposedly rich in gold. they say to make my contributed to medicare all my life. take payments were taken out. they don't know that we're getting back to-3 times a week paid and. >> to the social security reward? rewards to people who would not have saved. rewards irresponsible people. the take the population without social security, some people say some people don't. if you saved you would get a much better retirement than under social security. so we're penalizing responsibility and rewarding your responsibility. now, that is immoral by almost any ethical system.
john: since your book, free-market revolution, which argues that you just on all of these people who are on social security or medicare. you fake social security and medicare out, both for economic reasons, but more importantly for more reasons. you don't jump them. you make a contract. it's an agreement. within a generation or two about the system scandal weight. people then save. you know, there ia premium on saving for the time, and the people who really can't, there is a small percentage of the population who really cannot save, really cannot afford it. they depend on charity. it in a money from other people, which they do today as well. just, it's voluntary. today it is being forced on the and generation to support their parents and grandparents. john: voluntary is more moral than forest. government is forced. >> forces evil. volunteering is good. government is forced. sequester. the liberal media is hysterical.
nbc nightly news. in california 9,000 low-income students to lose financial aid. in texas millions for teachers and schools could be slashed. the sequester could cripple air travel, force firefighter layoffs, even take preschoolers' out a child care. even. now, -- >> this is panic for the sake of panic. an attempt to demigod us away from this tiny village cut, as you showed, a tiny little cat in the projected growth. and look, it is a stupid mechanism. just to cut across the board without focusing on where the problem is really lying in places like entitlement, places where growth is out of control. they're using these kind of touchy-feely target the heart. john: -- john: it works. >> it does unfortunately. our moral code is such that we believe that is what is important. instead of personal responsibility, people responsible for their own life, pursuing their own happiness, there unsuccess, that is what this country is really about.
john: thank you. at the beginning of the show i pretended to steal things for kids. i do these silly things because i think it is important tt your peoe understand that my generation is ripping them off. but do they know that? apparently not. that is next. >> the government is spending trillions of dollars, and you are going to be expected to pay the bill. how you feel about that? >> i don't really think about
♪ john: okay. she's young to understand, she has to pay for my age group. i assume all the young people have some understanding. politicians talked about generational that for years. >> wake-up young people. we are stealing their future. robin, literally robbing the next generation. so the next generation, college students should know about the problem. i sent the show's special correspondent to ask about what should america do about the debt . she went to cal state northridge and ask questions like this. >> the government has been
spending trillions of dollars, and you're going to be expected to pay the bill in the future. have you feel about that? >> i don't really think about that. >> how can all this come down on us? is that going to happen. this is going to be rolled over. >> and guess we will all be scared. john: and these are college students. there were really that close. >> i am surprised because normally freshman year in college you have to take political science or e. kahn. you have to learn at least some of the vocabulary terms. and there were not idiots. some of them seemed genuinely concerned. john: and in political science, and policies days, maybe they don't touch the debt. they talk about all the things that government -- more things government should do for people. >> too busy selling the marxism. you're absolutely right. trillions estate. most did not know what the words meant. >> tell me what you know about
the sequestered. >> that sounds absolutely unfamiliar to me. >> was the deficit in the debt and the deficit. >> the debt and the deficit, not too sure. >> do you know what the deficit is? >> no. >> tune out the debt is? john: now, if i am of your would say, they just picked out the ones who didn't know. most did. >> no. there was only one who actually knew. not only what the words meant, but the difference between debt and deficit. there was only one person who could actually explain what those two things meant. john: i have to think about it sometime. i would note. >> they both star with the. and stand their is a bit of confusion. john: and like many people, students engage in magical thinking about government. some know that there is a problem.
one guy even bragged about beating the system. >> beaten system. decadence of loans and don't pay them back. >> take a bunch of stuff for free and six sunday as of the bill. >> exactly. they're taking away your taxes. might as well as. >> someone else should pay for all your stuff. >> exactly. i mean, who else? forty going to do, work? john: were you going to do, work? john: this keeps me out. you spent much of the day there. was there -- or you just disillusioned? >> i was a little bit -- a little disheartened. people are sweet and genuine. a lot of them agree that there is a huge problem. the disconnect was they agree that the government spends too much money. they understand the have to pay the bill. they still want free stuff. now and forever. john: i can understand wanting free stuff. i'm astounded that people will say on television where mom and dad can see it. it is just so stupid and
selfish. >> that last night, was blown away when he said what he's supposed to do, work? yes. that is exactly where you're supposed to do. people who put themselves through school, there were the only ones who understood that someone is not going to take care of you. you will have to work hard. you're going to have to get a job if you don't have one already. and there were some bright spots john: let's see does not. a few responsible people. >> one of our biggest problems is people that expect things, they feel like they, you know, they are qualified to receive instead of working hard. >>f the government runs out of money and cannot support you when you reach retirement you're not worried because -- >> i'm going to work for my own money. john: i'm glad there was some good news. kennedy, stay with us. later she has a quiz for megan kelly, greg got field, and me. up next, why you should get
♪ john: i, ruth lea, refuse to die. i just don't want t and because free enterprise invented things like vaccines, mri, the guitar, probablyon't die soon. average people and make it to my age live until we're ready for. now, i will pay for my retirent. i have saved up. the problem is, who will pay for the millions of retired people who didn't save, who expectssa security checks and medicare. i know. you young people will pay when my generation, the baby boomers to retire. you will still be working, earning money. you will take care of the old. how does all of this done? that was with the function of creating social security, and worked up until now. but now there just aren't enough of you, and in the future, there will be even fewer of you because people today have your
kids, and that is a big problem. and just wrote, what to expect when no one is expecting. america's coming demographic disaster. joel, the author of the next hundred million, america in 2015. you say if we don't start to have kids and a reasonable rate we are screwed. meaning. >> fundamentally if you don't have enough children to work for the number of retirees it does not work. john: what doesn't work? >> only so many people working, contributing to the pension system, and tre are too many people ding off of the pension system. is pretty simple. john: you see what to expect when no one is expecting. what the me? >> we're not having babies the what we used to. some people are. >> you never know what s's going to do. the problem is, when your fertility rate drops and stays below the replacement level, over time your age profile
shifts. you get this inverted pyramid with more old and young. they call them future taxpayers. we don't have a future taxpayers being worn and into the system. the support ratio drops. john: replacement rate you need is just over two. to parents and then to account for some kids dying you need a little lover to maintain. >> exactly. and we were at that really up until about 2007. and it's going down as we get richer and people get more selfish. what is it go down? >> a crappy economy. passivism. when you have countries with alter low birthrates it basically jives with pessimism. what type of future. people don't have kids if they think the future is of great. >> but that may change. >> that is the hope. john: bosnian not talking about a new law. bring people in.
>> the problem as we become so dependent. we really are hostage to a continuing and it may not. fertility rates to drop in worldwide coming to the central and south america. mexico is that the replacement rate now and falling fast. john: and singapore the government gives cash bonuses to mothers who have more babies. >> yes,. john: as a work? >> not really. it works a little bit, but it does not work enough. we were doing interviews in singapore and asking young women , or whatever you'd have a kid. we get up to a million dollars and we give up. she wasn't going to have a kid no matter how much because she sang, over time that is going to cost more than a million. what's a negative and hassle. john: why should we believe you to doomsayer's any more than the population bomb. there are too many babies. regarding everyone out, which is what i was taught in college. total nonsense. maybe this is not correct. >> we're just raising the issue. we have a problem.
it can be a very serious long-term problem. had we address it? a socie, like japan. by 2015 more people overeat then under 15 japan is going to have this problem first. there have been in now. i've been writing about japanese demography for 25 years. exactly what we thought was happening is happening and worse than we thought. john: the prime minister said, let elderly people hurry up and i according to the guardian newspaper. he was talking about, you're not being a good person if you that the government pay for you i your old age. >> indicating to a point now not only were people living longer, not getting married, not dating. the normal -- john: water they doing? >> surveys, how many young teenage boys are interested in sex. most of them aren't. i don't know. when i was a teenager it was kind of a big topic. you know, it is like they have almost evolve into some new kind
of species. hopefully that won't happen in america. john: so american commander democrat. but you still might find this funny. we can have a government program to cut the tips of condoms. placebos and birth control pills . >> i think they're passing out cabbies and barry white. >> and economic growth and how people feel that the world is going to get better and they will have children. i still believe tha is the key thing. and not to do stupid things like tell people th they can't have single-family homes because, you know, al gore things that they shouldn't. john: and mayor blumberg, you say, is contributing to the problem by pushing small apartments? >> well, i don't think he will have to many families in those. john: explain the three vendors square-foot apartment. >> a lot of real estate money to be made in tiny apartments off. shove them into the same structure. john: you can have a family in a small apartment. people used it --
>> it's funny. there is research on this going back to the 1930's. this we started building after the first world war small, condensed apartment buildings and that is directly thathe fertility rate is dropping. this is been reproduced ever are from chicago to iran to brazil. it turns out to be entirely consistent. housing type and lenses fertility even holding all the other demographic factors of the people living near constant. single-family homes produce more kids and townhomes. townhomes produce market the small, micron apartments. >> and this is something you're going to see in more and more countries as we go on, and this debate because, they're now having debates about this issue in east asia, europe. and so i think this is going to be one of the big issues of the next 20 years. john: thank you. so, go forth and procreate. and coming up, one reason of the debt bomb is that the government pays for stuff that is so stupid it sounds sick. did you know that your helping to pay for our cowboy poetry
festival? so later, making kelly, craig and i will try to guess as to been sounding programs are real or fake. next, we will wake americans up. make people realize that the debt bomb is about to explode. riots like these also, though, there is some good news. one big country. we can learn from those places. that's next. ♪
john: we have a horrible that problem, but it could be worse. we could be likereece. they are even deeper in debt and right over just about any cat. or we could be like japan, as we just heard. not enough young people being born to pay for the future. we can also learn different things for france and canada.
economist david henderson grew up in canada, which had its own debt crisis in the 90's. economists moved here from france. so france. i take comfort in that. >> in worse shape for the longest time. deep in the damages. the unemployment. they're not in at best shape. and david was once in similar shape. >> yes. canada in that mid-90s in terrible shape. their debt as a percentage of gdp was 7%. but they brought it down to about 29% by the middle of last decade. john: 70-29% by doing something america does not even propose to do with the sequestered by making actual cuts. >> by making actual cuts in
dollar terms. and they did that over a number of years. three years. agricultural department cut 22 actual%. natural resources almost 50%. done by a liberal government. >> pile of the government. john: by contrast, france is not taking similar steps. >> the only way they responded to anything is by saying to my know, we have the deficits. it will raise taxes. there have not been any public austerity. we have not been getting. in fact, and we keep talking about how the need to grow the economy which means basically we need to spend more money. >> the government. >> the government is to spend more money. john: the higher tax rate, 75 percent on rich people. >> yes. for income above $1 million. john: i like how will smith, the liberal actor who supports higher taxes in america reacted when he was at about france's new 75% rate. >> seventy-five.
>> yeah. that's different. that's way different. seventy-five. um, well, you know, god bless america. [laughter] john: i am still not getting, says no one here wants to cut us, what moved canada to say we're going to spend less? >> there were in bigger trouble. there were. you did have a liberal government. that old line about mixing going to china. i think republicans get a lot of cuts if they were to do their necks invest in china by going for defense cuts. noticing that the cold war is over and saying, we don't need to have a department of offense. let's of the department of defense. john: you work for the navy. if the sequester happens you will be laid off. >> that's right. well, i will get a furlough. john: the e-mail today. >> yes. by the way, i am not objecting
to that. we need to have cats. and this -- these cuts are kind of crazy, but they're better than no cuts. and no cuts is what was on the table before. john: i will give you the last word. you moved to america from france because you felt america was better. now we are becoming like france. john: we are becoming like france, would take comfort in the fact that, i mean, france is, in fact a much worse. we talked about the 70% marginal tax rate. also, they have doubled their wealth tax in the last few years . the increased all the taxes that you can think about, and as a result, and you don't see it is quite yet an american, you have gerard depardieu, very famous actor decided to leave, and he has made the headlines, but he is just one of many, many, many. john: are to leave america. there's a notion in the way. thank you. coming up, what if i told you that our government spends millions on a mushroom council?
♪ >> not smart, not fair, would hurt our economy. hundreds of thousands of american said the unemployment rolls. john: oh, my goodness. the sky will fall. that is the message president obama sends us, and it is not just his words to convey that. it is the background. yes, some firefighters behind him. the picture alone sends a message. those evil budget cutters that ge their weight. these eyes men and women will be heard, and you will be less safe when we face the debt bomb, this is manipulation meant to make us look away from that, from a real problem. it is not new. it is just what politicians do. what do you mean? >> almost 40 years ago there was a great term coined by liberal journalist in washington back when they cared about cutting government or at least running government well, and that is called firemen first. when a bureaucrat is faced with not even cutting government, but
cutting the growth of government , and the first thing you want to do is get a fireman in fron of the camera and say, this is what we like about government. it will suffer first, and that we rally public support to pay for government for all the things that they don't love. john: that is all i'm hearing. terrible things. 3-hour lines at that tsa. one. officials at two massachusetts cities threated to kill some animals when the state budget cuts loom. >> worse than that. they say that more than half of the air force fleets of airplanes will be grounded at some .2013 based upon this. there wille meat inspections. the nation's meat and poultry factories will be shut down. this is scaremongering. it should be properly understood as their mongering by people trying to scare the public and scare republicans about going through with cutting government. john: let's go to president obama's actual meat cleaver
speech. >> emergency responders, like the ones who are here today, their ability to help communities respond to recover from disasters would be the greatest. thousands of teachers indicators will be laid off. john: what is interesting is that teachers dramatic to of educators, police and firemen, that is not the federal government. it is almost all state and local >> we have been hearing about teachers getting fired for five years now. one of these days they're going to close their run down the city of new york, but is still open because they never actuallget fired. there's the threat of firing your darling little child's teacher, and a never really do. john: and while some federal money guest teachers in cops, most of the money won't be touched. >> the vast majority still, knock on wood, comes from local and state sources. john: the federal government does have responsibilities. obama went on to say fbi agents will be furloughed. prosecutors will close cases and
let criminals go. airport security will see cutbacks. it could happen. >> just, it could. if it does, the people who deserve most of the blame -- no, the blame, the federal managers who oversaw these agencies over the last 12 years. why? because we have doubled the cost of government. if you're going to ground the air force because we can't have any cuts after a 70% runup in defense spending of the last decade, then that is on the pentagon, not on the people who would trade by little for one year. john: the other distraction is the change the subject. obama talks about the war on the women that republicans wage. the problem of the day. >> a problem that did not this -- did not get discussed. go back to the debates. the three major party debates in the presidential campaign. it did not use the phrase debt ceiling even once. fiscal cliff, that was a big deal. not once. the only mention sequester once.
it was for a loto say it sn't his fault and is not going to happen. that made the campaign about bain capital, what women. 47 percent, anything that the actual economy. long term entitlements, and it is a way to distract people. this is a time-honored washington concept. john: of course not just president obama. president bush the elder, type the drug war in the speech from the oval office holding a bag of cocaine. >> this is crack cocaine seized a few days ago by drug enforcement agents in a park just across the street from the white house. john: wow. right across the street from the white house. it turned out that that was crack sold in lafayette park only because dea agents lured then known dealer there. the dealer did not even know where lafayette park was. the d.a. had to give him directions also that he could be caught there. and this is show business. this is what every mayor, a
small-town mayor, but to mayor does. they want to be next to the crime, the bust. the ship full of cocaine. they want to be at the ribbon cutting ceremony. it is unseemly to see as we did that hilarious but when it is the president to visit. you want to think that there is more gravitas associated with the office. john: not just a gimmick. >> but is not just a gimmick, but that is the thing. it is a gimmick. when you spend money politically it is going to be politicized, and politics is not pretty. kendis buckley, based on manipulating people's emotions. that is how you get things done. john: i can say it's interesting and fun to watch if we did not face real problems, and the debt bomb. >> a huge step palm. it is not just that entitlements going to be an affordable ten years from now, which is totally true and is being ignored. also that if you have debt over 90 percent of gdp for any stretch of time that puts a real active drag on your economy right now. so it is not just that you cannot hire fire fighters. is that people are out of work.
we have one of the worst economies and a prolonged cents in modern history right now. part of that is because government spending is crowding out private spending and we have this debt overhang. it is a real problem, which is more pressing than firefighters. john: thank you, matt welch, reason magazine. next, when america is going broke but power leaders spend your money on a laundry folded robot. as someone told me that there were spending the way i would have assumed he made up of a government program, but, no, it's true. your government did spend more than a million dollars on this robot. when we return, a quiz about government programs. we will try to guess what -- which are real and which are fake. ♪
>> we were told the sequester will cut to a viable government services there is no fat to cut so let's play a game we will call a real or fake i will play against my colleagues. had kennedy will describe real government programs and make some up. can we tell the difference? whoever gets the most right
wing is a meat cleaver. >> number one, $88,000 to send a comedy to or to india. that was a real program. to of you got that right. >> six and a thousand dollars to study public perception of facial hair. congratulations you all got to right. number three, $140,000 to steady pig species in china real or fake? >> i know everything there is to know about pig species in china. >> $55,000 to discover the link between the maturity and heavy drinking in your thirties. real or fake. >>t